This  is a petition for  certiorari and  prohibition with preliminary injunction filed  by Timoteo  V. Cruz against Francisco G. H. Salva, in his capacity as City Fiscal of Pasay City,  to restrain  him  from  continuing with  the preliminary investigation  he  was conducting in September, 1957  in connection  with the  killing of  Manuel Monroy which took place  on June  15, 1953 in  Pasay City.  To better understand the present  case  and  its implications, the following facts  gathered from the pleadings and  the memoranda filed by  the parties, may be stated.

Following the killing  of  Manuel Monroy  in  1953 a number of persons were accused as involved and implicated in said crime.  After  a  long trial, the  Court of  First Instance of  Pasay  City  found Oscar  Castelo,  Jose  de Jesus, Hipolito Bonifacio, Bienvenido Mendoza, Francis Berdugo and  others guilty of the crime of  murder and sentenced them to death.  They all appealed the  sentence although without said appeal, in  view of the  imposition of the extreme penalty, the case would have to be reviewed automatically by this Court.   Oscar Castelo sought a new trial which was granted  and upon  retrial, he  was again found guilty and his  former conviction  of sentence was affirmed and reiterated by the same trial  court.

It seems that pending  appeal, the late President  Magsaysay ordered a reinvestigation of the case.  The purpose of  said  reinvestigation  does not  appear in the  record. Anyway, intelligence agents of the Philippine Constabulary and investigators of Malacañang conducted the investigation for the Chief Executive, questioned a number of people and obtained what would appear to be confession, pointing to persons, other than those convicted and sentenced by the trial court, as the real killers of Manuel Monroy.

Counsel  for Oscar Castelo and  his co-defendants wrote to respondent Fiscal Salva to conduct a reinvestigation of the case presumably on the basis of the affidavits and confessions obtained by those who had investigated the case at the instance of Malacañang.  Fiscal  Salva conferred with the Solicitor General as to what steps he should take. A conference was held with the Secretary of Justice who decided to have the  results of the  investigation  by the Philippine Constabulary and Malacanang investigators made available to  counsel for the appellants.

Taking advantage of this opportunity, counsel for the appellants  filed a motion for new trial with this Tribunal supporting the same with the so-called affidavits and confessions of some of those persons investigated, such as the confessions of Sergio Eduardo y de Guzman, Oscar Caymo, Pablo  Canlas, and  written  statements of several  others. By resolution of this Tribunal, action on said motion for new trial  was deferred until the case was  studied  and determined on the  merits.  In the meantime, the Chief, Philippine  Constabulary, had sent to  the Office of Fiscal Salva copies of the same affidavits and  confessions  and written statements, of which the motion for new trial was based, and respondent Salva proceeded to conduct  a  reinvestigation designating for said  purpose a committee of three composed of himself as chairman and Assistant City Attorneys Herminio A. Avendanio and Ernesto A. Bernabe.

In connection with said preliminary investigation being conducted by the committee, petitioner Timoteo Cruz was subpoenaed by respondent to appear at his office on September 21, 1957, to testify: "upon  oath  before  me  in  a certain criminal investigation to be conducted at that time and place by this office against you and Sergio Eduardo, et al., for murder."   On September 19, 1957, petitioner Timoteo  Cruz wrote  to respondent Salva asking for the transfer  of the preliminary investigation from September 21, due to the fact that his counsel, Atty. Crispin Baizas, would attend a  hearing on that same day in Naga City. Acting upon said request for postponement,  Fiscal Salva set the preliminary investigation  on  September  24.   On that day, Atty. Baizas appeared for petitioner Cruz, questioned the jurisdiction of the committee, particularly respondent Salva, to conduct the preliminary investigation in view  of the fact that the same case involving the killing of Manuel Monroy was pending appeal in this Court, and on the same day filed the present petition for certiorari and prohibition.  This Tribunal gave due course to the petition for certiorari and prohibition and upon the filing of a cash bond  of  P200.00 issued a  writ of preliminary injunction thereby stopping the preliminary investigation being conducted by respondent Salva.

The connection, if any, that petitioner Cruz had  with the preliminary investigation being  conducted  by  respondent Salva and his committee was that the affidavits and confessions  sent to Salva by the Chief, Philippine Constabulary, and which were being investigated, implicated petitioner Cruz, even picturing him as the instigator and  mastermind in the killing of  Manuel Monroy.

The position taken by petitioner Cruz in this case is that inasmuch as the principal case of People vs, Oscar Castelo, et al., G. R. No. L-10794, is pending appeal and consideration before us,  no court, much less a prosecuting attorney like  respondent Salva, had any right or  authority to conduct  a preliminary investigation or  reinvestigation of the case  for that would be obstructing the administration of justice and interferring with the consideration on appeal of the main case wherein appellants had been found guilty and convicted and  sentenced; neither had respondent authority to cite him to appear and testify at said investigation.

Respondent Salva, however,  contends that if he subpoenaed  petitioner  Cruz at all, it  was because of the latter's oral and personal request to allow  him to appear at the investigation with his  witnesses for  his  own protection, possibly, to controvert and rebut any evidence  therein presented against  him.  Salva  claims  that were it  not for this request  and  if, on the contrary, Timoteo Cruz had expressed any  objection to being cited to appear in the investigation) he (Salva) would never have subpoenaed him.

Although petitioner  Cruz now  stoutly denies having made such request that he be allowed to appear at the investigation, we are inclined to agree with Fiscal Salva that such a request had been made.  Inasmuch as  he, Timoteo Cruz, was deeply implicated in the killing  of Manuel Monroy by the affidavits and confessions of  several  persons who were being investigated by Salva and his committee, it was but natural  that petitioner  should have  been interested, even desirous  of being present at that investigation  so  that  he  could face  and  cross examine  said witnesses and  affiants  when they testified in connection with  their affidavits or confessions, either   repudiating,. modifying  or ratifying the same.  Moreover,  in the communication, addressed to respondent Salva asking that the investigation, scheduled for September 21, 1957,  be postponed because  his attorney would  be unable to attend, Timoteo  Cruz  expressed no opposition to the subpoena, not even a hint that he was objecting to his being cited to appear at the investigation.

As to the right of respondent Salva to conduct the preliminary investigation which he and his committee began, ordinarily, when a criminal case in which a fiscal intervened though nominally, for  according to respondent, two government attorneys had been  designed  by the Secretary of Justice to handle the prosecution in the trial of the case in the court below, is tried and decided and it is  appealed to a higher court such as this Tribunal, the functions and actuations  of said fiscal have terminated;  usually, the appeal is handled for the government by the  Office of the Solicitor General.  Consequently, there would  be no reason or occasion for said fiscal to  conduct a reinvestigation to determine criminal responsibility for the crime  involved in the appeal.

However,  in the present case,  respondent has, in our opinion, established a justification for his  reinvestigation because according to  him,  in the original criminal  case against  Castelo,  et al., one of the defendants named  Salvador Realista y de Guzman was not included in  the trial much less in  the judgment  for the reason that  he  was arrested and was placed within the jurisdiction of the trial court only after the  trial against the other  accused  had commenced, even after the prosecution had rested its  case and the defense had  begun to present its evidence.  Naturally,  Realista  remained to stand trial.  The trial court, according to respondent,  at the instance of Realista,. had scheduled the hearing at an early date, that is  in August, 1957.  Respondent claims that before he would  go to trial in the prosecution of Realista he  had to chart  his course and plan of action,  whether to present the same evidence, oral and documentary, presented in the original cage and trial, or, in view of  the new evidence  consisting of the affidavits and  confessions sent  to him by  the  Philippine Constabulary,  he should  first assess and  determine  the value of said evidence by conducting an investigation and that should he be convinced  that the persons  criminally responsible for the  killing of Manuel Monroy were other than those already tried  and convicted, like Oscar Castelo and his co-accused  and  co-appellants, including Salvador Realista, then he might  act accordingly and  even recommend the dismissal of the case against  Realista.

In this, we are inclined to agree with respondent Salva. For, as  contended by  him and as suggested by authorities, the duty  and role  of a prosecuting attorney is not only to  prosecute and secure  the conviction  of the guilty  but also to protect  the  innocent.

"We cannot overemphasize the necessity of close scrutiny and investigation  of prosecuting  officers of all cases handled by them,s  averse to any form of vacillation by such officers in the prosecution of public offenses, it is unquestionable that they may, in  appropriate cases, in order to do  justice and avoid in  justice, reinvestigate cases in which  they have  already filed  the corresponding informations.  In  the language of Justice  Sutherland of the  Supreme Court of the United  States, the prosecuting officer  "is  the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy,  but of a sovereignty whose obligation to  govern impartially is as compelling  as its  obligation  to govern at all;  and  whose interest,  therefore,  in  a criminal  prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very  definite sense the  servant of  the law, the twofold aim of which is  that guilt shall not escape nor innocent suffer.  He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor indeed, he should do  so.  But, while he may strike hard blows, he  is not at  liberty to strike foul ones.; It is as much his duty to  refrain from improper  methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as  it is to  use every legitimate means  to bring about a just one."  (69 United States Law Review, June, 1935, No. 6, p.  309, cited in the case of  Suarez vs.  Platon, 69 Phil., 556).

With respect to  the right  of  respondent Salva to cite petitioner to appear and testify before him at the scheduled preliminary investigation, under the law,  petitioner had a right to be present at that investigation since as was already  stated,  he was more or  less deeply  involved and implicated in the killing of Monroy according to the affiants whose confessions,  affidavits  and  testimonies  respondent Salva  was considering  or was to consider at said preliminary  investigation.   But he need not be present at said investigation because his presence there implies, and was more  of  a  right  rather than a  duty or legal obligation. Consequently, even if, as  claimed  by  respondent  Salva, petitioner expressed the desire to be given an opportunity to be present at the said  investigation, if he later changed his mind  and renounced  his right, and even strenuously objected to being made to appear at said investigation, he could not be compelled to do so.

Now we come to the manner in which said investigation was conducted by the respondent.  If, as contended by him, the purpose of  said  investigation  was only  to  acquaint himself with and evaluate the evidence  involved  in  the affidavits and confessions of Sergio  Eduardo, Cosme Camo and others by  questioning  them,  then  he,  respondent, could well have conducted the investigation in his office, quietly, unobtrusively and without much  fanfare, much less publicity.

However, according to the petitioner and not denied by the respondent, the investigation was conducted not in respondent's office but in the session hall of the Municipal Court  of Pasay City evidently, to accommodate the  big crowd  that wanted to  witness the proceeding,  including members  of the press.   A number of microphones were installed.   Reporters were everywhere and  photographers were busy taking pictures.  In other words, apparently with the permission of, if not the  encouragement  by  the respondent, news photographers and newsmen had a field day.  Not only this, but in the course of the investigation, as  shown  by the  transcript of the stenographic  notes taken  during said investigation, on two  occasions,  the first, after  Oscar  Caymo had  concluded  his testimony, respondent Salva, addressing the newspapermen said, "Gentlemen of the press,  if you  want to ask questions I  am willing to let you do so and the questions asked will be reproduced as my own"; and the second, after Jose Maratella y de Guzman had finished testifying and respondent Salva,  addressing the  newsmen, again said, "Gentlemen of the press is free to ask question to the witness if you want to.  We are willing to adopt the questions  as ours."  Why respondent was willing to abdicate and renounce his right and prerogative  to make and address the questions to  the witnesses under  investigation, in favor of the members of the press, is difficult for us to understand, unless  he, respondent, wanted to curry favor with  the  press and publicize his investigation as much as possible.  Fortunately, the gentlemen of the press to whom he accorded such unusual  privilege  and  favor appeared  to  have  wisely and  prudently declined  the  offer  and did not ask questions, this according to  the  transcript now before  us.

But, the newspapers certainly played up and gave wide publicity to what took place  during the investigation, and this  involved  headlines and  extensive recitals,  narrations of and comments on the testimonies given by the witnesses as well as  vivid descriptions of  the incidents that took place during the investigation.  It seemed as though the criminal responsibility for the killing of Manuel Monroy which had already been tried and finally determined  by the lower court and which was  under appeal and advisement by this Tribunal,  was being retried and redetermined  in the  press,  and  all  with the apparent  placet and complaisance  of respondent.

Frankly,  the members of  this Court were greatly disturbed and  annoyed by such publicity and  sensationalism, all of which may properly be laid at the door of respondent Salva.  In this, he committed what we regard  a  grievous error and poor judgment for which we fail to find any excuse or satisfactory  explanation.   His actuations in this regard went well beyond  the bounds of prudence, discretion and  good taste.   It  is bad  enough to  have such  undue publicity when  a  criminal case is being investigated by the authorities,  even when it is being tried in  court; but when said  publicity  and sensationalism  is allowed, even encouraged, when the case  is on  appeal  and is pending consideration  by this Tribunal, the whole thing becomes inexcusable, even abhorrent,  and this Court, in the interest of justice, is  constrained and called upon  to put an end to it and  a deterrent against its repetition by  meting an appropriate disciplinary measure,  even  a  penalty  to the one liable.

Some of the members of the Court who appeared to feel more strongly than the others favored the imposition of a more or less severe penal sanction.  After mature deliberation,  we  have  finally  agreed that  a  public  censure would, for the present, be  sufficient.

In conclusion,  we find and  hold that respondent Salva was warranted  in holding the preliminary  investigation involved in this case, insofar as Salvador Realista is concerned, for which reason the writ of preliminary injunction issued stopping said preliminary investigation, is dissolved; that in view  of petitioner's  objection to appear and testify at the said investigation, respondent may not compel him to attend said investigation, for which reason, the subpoena issued by respondent against petitioner is hereby set aside.

In view of the foregoing, the petition for certiorari and prohibition is granted  in part and denied in part.  Considering the  conclusion arrived at by us, respondent Francisco G. H.   Salva is  hereby publicly reprehended and censured for the  uncalled for  and  wide publicity and sensationalism that he had given to and allowed in connection with his investigation,  which we consider and find to be contempt of  court;  and, furthermore,  he is warned that a repetition of the same would meet with a more severe  disciplinary action and penalty.   No costs.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista  Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia, and Barrera, JJ., concur.